politics

S Korea to carefully review Japan arbitration call on wartime labor

60 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

60 Comments
Login to comment

They got little to lose at this point, but who will be this "third country"?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

They got little to lose at this point, but who will be this "third country"?

I assume a country that both are on good terms with who wasn't involved directly in the war between either side... so.. Turkey? Perhaps an African nation like Kenya or Uganda? Canada would also make a pretty good one I guess. The US is too involved politically in both of them to be used, Germany has a tendency to be apologetic and would likely take the SK side...

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Let those old men rest and enjoy the rest of his life in peace. They are being used as a political pawns by the Korean government.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

Knowing Japan, it'll be, "Be quite, and cooperate, please." It'll be a one-way "let's remake history!" tour with no official apology.

-19 ( +4 / -23 )

As is evident from the photo, only a few of the victims are still alive. But their descendants ad infinitum, like those in the comfort women issue, will do their damnedest to hitch a ride on that gravy train.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

South Korea's leadership is some of the most petulant on Earth. Maybe the most.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

@ksteer: I doubt Germany would support South Korea, or it would be forced to accept all the Greek claims for further war reparations that it always rejected.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Knowing Japan, it'll be, "Be quite, and cooperate, please." It'll be a one-way "let's remake history!" tour with no official apology.

Are you just pretending not to know about the numerous apologies and compensation made?

14 ( +16 / -2 )

@Alex80 I doubt Germany would support South Korea, or it would be forced to accept all the Greek claims for further war reparations that it always rejected

I think that likely has to do with Greece being part of the EU. But I did forget about that. Either way it would have some biases for the case...

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@ksteer: I wonder which Western Country with a past as a colonial power would like to be involved in this one, by supporting South Korean claims. It could set a dangerous precedent. Honestly, not even South Korea is so clean. Everyone knows what SK soldiers did during Vietnam war. So far to Vietnam wasn't politically convenient asking for reparations to SK, exactly like until SK was a developing Country, it accepted Japanese economic aid without asking for new war reparations. South Korea's attitude changed when it was developed enough. Vietnam attitude could change as well in future.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

South Korea will probably insist Communist China is the "neutral" Third Party.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

I guess the third Country could be the US. It was never considered "a colonial power", but a moral exemple for the world and "the leader" in human rights protection. Nobody could ask the US for some compensations...In this case, South Korea would win.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

I suggest Vietnam

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I mean...the US never paid for any war where they were involved or that they started. They are the leader of "human rights", despite everything. They can judge the others, but nobody judges them. Even if they take the SK side, nobody can ask them to pay for their war crimes. It never happened.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

All the European Countries are in a very different situation compared to the US.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Joe Blow: "South Korea's leadership is some of the most petulant on Earth. Maybe the most."

You obviously don't know very much about the world if that's what you think. More petulant than Trump? Kim, Jung-Un? Wow.

darknuts: "Are you just pretending not to know about the numerous apologies and compensation made?"

Show me one that's official, and I'll give you a unicorn. The only one that came remotely close was one in which later governments went out of their way to say it was not their position, and which right-wingers went around screaming in black trucks and telling children they thought might be zainichi to die and "go home" (in that order, I think). But come on, my friend, show us an official, "We are sorry for coerced sexual slavery".

-13 ( +3 / -16 )

I can't believe the Japanese government even sent a letter. Just ignore these people. It's all just propaganda for South Koreans so they don't revolt against their own government.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

@Alex80

Germany would definitely support South Korea, they have already done so multiple times, and have made several subtle hints at Japan that they should stop whitewashing their history. I know a lot of Germans who get really pissed when they find out Japan is still denying their war crimes, and even speak proudly that Germany and Japan were allies during the war.

Also, nobody pays any attention to Greece in the EU. They are a failed socialist state who survive thanks to EU funds. They kept borrowing money to finance their public spending for many years, they lied about their deficit and debt figures (there is an EU rule about that). When the Banks found out they were being lied to, they cut the lending, and Greece went bankrupt. Then they started blaming everybody but themselves and their own corrupt oligarchy government. Many EU countries wanted Greece to be kicked out of the union, but Germany and France agreed to forgive some of their debt, and give them more loans ONLY if they promise to cut the spending and make fiscal reforms. They took the money, and didn't do any reforms. For comparison, this was the period Ireland made a lot of reforms, and then experienced 11% growth rate. But not Greece, no, they kept blaming the EU and Germany like lunatics despite being literally on a life-support by Germany and France.

Eventually the EU put more pressure on them to either reform their fiscal policy or be kicked out of the Eurozone. They made some tiny reforms, and they continue to make the minimum reforms necessary only to keep getting billions Euro from Germany almost every month.

Poland made similar comments about reparations. Both governments are corrupt and run by lunatics who embarrass their own people. The German foreign minister already addressed those comments by both countries saying all reparations have been settled long time ago. As a European, i a personally enraged at the audacity these Greeks have. Without the EU, they would be poorer than Egypt, and despite Germany savings them twice, and then giving them billions every month, and forgiving so much of their, they have the audacity to blame them for their own failed corrupt mafia state? Really hard to swallow.

-15 ( +3 / -18 )

@smithinjapan Not to jump into your argument with darknuts but...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan

That's a pretty extensive list of official apologies and reparations..

13 ( +15 / -2 )

@IloveCoffe: "nice narrative" about Greece. This is why many Europeans don't trust the Germans anymore.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

BS. Greece is not the only country which are more than ready and Germany is not the only country which

should receive baptism of fire if this kind of int'l peace treaty are to be broken this easy.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@alwaysspeakingwisdom: No, Japan will lose. Not because they are wrong, since they already settled the matter with more than one deal, and I think it's enough, but because of some reasons that have more to do with strategy than with Justice.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

I guess the third Country could be the US and Germany would definitely support South Korea and blah

Read the treaty!

The arbitration committee is made of three countries. Under the terms of the treaty, each country names one representative to the panel, and those two members jointly select an additional member from a third country.

South Korea can and will reject arbitration. Why? They same reason the rejected talks on this issue and on the Takeshima issue. They know a truly independent panel will rule in favor of Japan.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Showchinmono Today  05:57 pm JST

I suggest Vietnam

Ridiculous. Why on earth choose a non democracy, Communist state to be third party? The only fair, excellent third party to judge this massive dispute is the USA government.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

"Germany would definitely support South Korea, they have already done so multiple times, and have made several subtle hints at Japan that they should stop whitewashing their history."

Yet in the same essay:

"The German foreign minister already addressed those comments by both countries saying all reparations have been settled long time ago."

LOL at your logic.

The Germans get to say that issues are settled but the Germans tell the Japanese to stop whitewashing history?

Love the logic

So bye your logic. The Japanese should support Poland and Greece and tell the Germans to stop Whitewashing history.

LOL LOL LOL

1 ( +8 / -7 )

"No, Japan will lose"

Think! Japan would have not sought arbitration if they didn't think they could win.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

More Coffee Logic;

" i a personally enraged at the audacity these Greeks have. Without the EU, they would be poorer than Egypt, and despite Germany savings them twice, and then giving them billions every month, and forgiving so much of their, they have the audacity to blame them for their own failed corrupt mafia state? Really hard to swallow."

Wow! So much for the poor Greeks and Poles who were invaded by the Nazis. What happen to the victims and their right to justice? You get to write the above, but what would have said if a Japanese wrote the following:

 I'm a personally enraged at the audacity these Koreans/ Chinese have. Without the Japan, they would be poorer than Egypt, and despite Japan saving them twice, and then giving them billions every month, and forgiving so much of their debt , they have the audacity to blame Japan for their own failed corrupt mafia state? Really hard to swallow."

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL at the logic or perhaps I should say the lack of logic.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Arbitration is a good move to resolve this political issue. It should be under the UN umbrella.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

REVIEW

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@alwaysspeakingwisdom: I read that SK is sure to win, thanks to the International current mood about problems involving human rights. Every Country that is labeled as "right winger" lost, no matter which the problem is. We see the same kind of hysteria in the EU on a daily basis. For example, if you support a more rational attitude towards mass immigration, calling for a healthy regulation, you are "a right winger".

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"some of the former laborers who have won cases against Japanese firms to begin proceedings to sell off assets held by the firms in South Korea"

in other words... stealing - approved by SK government'n courts? It's a ridiculous discussion with this SK politics, over and over again. No interest in settling the argument, way to comfortable to keep the tensions. Internationally SK does a pretty good job in convincing other parties they're treated unfairly. Japan is way too honest about itself in that way. That comfort women statue is a pretty smart move as is the name fight over the Sea of Japan (but not the Yellow Sea or East China Sea, which also should be renamed if SK was following a decent rule...) What a shame with SK politics, the people generally are quite nice.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

@Saitamaliving: Exactly! The difference between South Korean propaganda and Japanese propaganda abroad is huge. Also on YouTube, there's plenty of South Korean videos and channels that do political propaganda against Japan. Almost every foreign person who knows about these problems between Japan and SK already embraced SK narrative, and She/he thinks Japan never apologized, since South Korea comunication skills Japan ones. It's all about propaganda, and South Korea wins under this aspect. It uses also kpop artists to promote these things, while Japan doesn't involve political propaganda in its media exported abroad.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

It's the same reason why so mamy people, especially in East Asia, speak about Germany as a model; Greek voice is weaker than Israel and Germany voice, so as long as Germany apologies to Israel, it's enough for the International community. As @IloveCoffee said "nobody cares about Greece" (I REALLY care about Greece and I think this Country has been ruined by Germany, but again, Germany soft power is strong regardless what I think).

2 ( +4 / -2 )

since South Korea comunication skills are stronger than Japan ones*

I meant to write this in my earlier comment.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The curse of Japan's refusal to add in the word "damages" in the 1965 treaty is coming back to haunt Japan, since Korea has a strong legal case to seek damages claim from Japan as damages was not covered by the 1965 treaty.

This is the reason why the Korean supreme court allowed the damages lawsuit, citing the lack of damages wording in the 1965 treaty.

This is so strange, Koreans offered to include the word "damages" in the 1965 treaty but Japan refused, claiming it did nothing wrong or illegal during the Japanese occupation of Korea. Now that false sense of pride is biting Japan back and Japan is guaranteed to lose in any international arbitration, because the 1965 treaty makes it clear it only covers assets, back wages, and properties, but not damages.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

You don't just have to look in European countries. You also have to look at countries in the Asian region that are compatible with impartial arbitration between Japan and South Korea.

Countries such as: India and Singapore.

Or the Oceania region: Australia and New Zealand.

And not counting Latin America: Brazil, Chile, Peru, Argentina, Panama or Mexico.

Any one of these countries is a potential neutral candidate to solve this problem.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It is helpful to understand fully the Agreement on the settlement signed on the 22 June 1965...

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20583/volume-583-I-8473-English.pdf

Scroll to 262 Article 111........Dispute resolution and arbitration

There are 4 numbered paragraphs..........

Paragraph 2/3 are significant as there are specified time limitations.......

2. Any dispute which fails to be settled under the provision of paragraph 1 shall be referred for decision to an arbitration board composed of three arbitrators, one to be appointed by the Government of each Contracting Party within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt by the Government of either Contracting Party from the Government of the other of a note requesting arbitration of the dispute, and the third arbitrator to be agreed upon by the two arbitrators so chosen within a further period of thirty days or the third arbitrator to be appointed by the government of a third country agreed upon within such further period by the two arbitrators, provided that the third arbitrator shall not be a national of either Contracting Party.

3. If, within the periods respectively referred to, the Government of either Contract ing Party fails to appoint an arbitrator, or the third arbitrator or a third country is not agreed upon, the arbitration board shall be composed of the two arbitrators to be designated by each of the governments of the two countries respectively chosen by the Governments of the Contracting Parties within a period of thirty days and the third arbitrator to be designated by the government of a third country to be determined upon consultation between the governments so chosen.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The problem is people can't separate the numerous official apologies from personal opinions. The Japanese government made many official apologies, but nothing is going to change the opinions of the Japanese who don't believe in it, even the ones in the government itself.

As much as some people would love to be able to, you can't legislate people's minds.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Finally Abe govt took the recommendation to form a panel to resolve the issues once for all. Northeast Asian have the wisdom to deal with all kind of problems among themselves, assuming Japan still considers herself as a Northeast Asian nation. Korea-Japan-China have an establish committee to study history and education, its role can be extended to include the current issue. My intelligence told me that Japan has $ 1 trillion surplus hidden somewhere outside Japan. That can be deposited in the committee fund on behalf of three nations. China can match that deposit with equal amount, and Koreas will do the same. In that way, the Northeast Asians will have enough money to do all kind of good things to the people of motherland. Only Northeast Asians can help northeast Asians.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

I would expect the whole arbitration process if or when both Governments of Japan and South Korea agree, to be guided and over-seen by the The International Court of Justice …...

https://www.icj-cij.org/en/court

Basically the Government of Japan have instigated the process. A refusal or negative response from the Government of South Korea, and a situation could trigger diplomatic protection procedures under international law to protect Japanese companies and business. Just don't want to go there, really

3 ( +5 / -2 )

itsonlyrocknroll, I consider the matter as an internal one among Northeast Asians, and intentional court has no role to play. If a husband has one night stand, the wife wouldn't take him to a court, would she ?

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

If this case goes before the ICJ, following issues will have to be ruled on.

Whether the Japan's annexation treaty of 1910 was legal. The 1965 treaty already clarified the 1910 treaty to be "already null and void", the ICJ will have to decide when the 1910 treaty was made "null and void", in 1910 due to its illegal nature(Korean claim) or in August 1945 at the time of Japan's surrender(Japanese claim).

Japan never took the formal steps to nullify the 1910 annexation treaty. Yet Japan acknowledged that the 1910 treaty was already null and void in the 1965 treaty; this counts against Japan.

Whether damages are included in the scope of the 1965 treaty when there is no explicit wording of it in treaty text.

If the case actually went to the ICJ, I predict Korea will come out the winner with a 90% probability.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

@kaz,shim.."They got little to lose at this point, but who will be this "third country"?" so long as its not the UK we've made a total mess of Brexit! we could not organise a party in a brewery!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I am afraid Akie protocols,schedules contained within the articles of the Treaty signed by both Governments in 1965 doesn't postulate the rules based terms and conditions as a matrimonial connubial.

With the benefit of hindsight, politically and economically, both countries priorities (1965) to normalise diplomatic relations have or bear little resemblance to Suth Korea/Japan modern developed 21st century cultures .

I would assume that the Treaty document would come under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. I understand both Governments are signatories.

Humbly I have posted the Treaty, have a browse. Treaties that normalise periods of conflict, where war in many instances leave a trail of injustices has to by definition be legally enforceable and incontrovertible.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Samit Basu, I presume the ICJ role would be to offer “guidance” only, as the Dispute resolution and arbitration terms are quite detailed.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

South Korea has been a poison for Japan! They have gone back on agreements sign many times before. Last time in 2015 they signed Irreversible and final aggrement on the comfort woman issue, than 2 years later they say give me more. Not even Germany has done as much for a country as Japan has for S. Korea.

It's not just about comfort woman, it's force labor, the sea of Japan name, the Island S. Korea took illegally from Japan.

Stop having relations with this Japan hating country.

Treat S. Korea the same way they treat Japan and this problem will be resolved!

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@Alex80

The difference between Japanese and German apology.

Japanese Apology : Japan accepts the moral responsibility of crimes against comfort women having taken place in its territory, even though the Japanese state has not ordered their kidnapping. It was the act of private individuals. The Japanese state rejects the criminal responsibility of having ordered the forced conscription of comfort women from the Imperial Army High Command(A documented lie). Tojo Hideki and other convicted A-class criminals are not criminals under Japanese law, and Japanese citizens are free to pay respect to Tojo Hideki at the Yasukuni Shrine.

German Apology : The German state accepts the criminal responsibility of Nazi war crimes and the crimes against humanity, and makes it a crime to praise Nazis or Adolf Hitler. 

It's not just about comfort woman, it's force labor, the sea of Japan name,

The IHO is threatening to unilaterally wipe the "Sea of Japan" name off the map unless Japan came to an agreement with Korea. So the "Sea of Japan" name is a goner either way. It will be either " " or "Sea Of Japan/East Sea".

@itsonlyrocknroll

Samit Basu, I presume the ICJ role would be to offer “guidance” only,

In order for the ICJ to accept a case, both parties must agree to accept the verdict. It's not a guidance, but an internationally binding verdict.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

itsonlyrocknroll, go to ICJ will be a huge mistake. Both Japan and SK have the capabilities to ignore any rulings deemed unfair. Japan and SK must leave rooms for future generations. Talk, yes, but among Northeast Asians. In fact, court is a joke, because court is mad of people and people are sinners.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

This is so strange, Koreans offered to include the word "damages" in the 1965 treaty but Japan refused, claiming it did nothing wrong or illegal during the Japanese occupation of Korea. Now that false sense of pride is biting Japan back and Japan is guaranteed to lose in any international arbitration, because the 1965 treaty makes it clear it only covers assets, back wages, and properties, but not damages.

Because Japan believed and still does annexation was legitimate. What SK tried, spending 10 years+ up until 1965 treaty was to force Japan to accept the annexation was illegal. No way Japan allowed for wordings about compensation associated with illegal occupation. but damage was covered. Never heard of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties? Treaty is to be read not just by treaty but along with memorandum which were disclosed by Roh Moo-hyun administration which officially clarified that appropriate compensation from Japan had been already done and all the remaining issues related to wartime labor should be taken care of by SK govenment.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

showchinmono, which international law says that if Japan believed legitimate then it is legitimate ?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

@showchinmono

Because Japan believed and still does annexation was legitimate. 

The ICJ will decide the validity of the 1910 treaty if the forced labourer damages case went before the ICJ.

Japan officially acknowledged in 1965 that the 1910 treaty was "already null and void" when Japan took no actions to nullify the 1910 treaty.

So when did the 1910 treaty become null and void? In 1910 or 1945? The outcome of the forced labourer damages claim case depends on that question, because the 1965 treaty does not cover damages from the illegal actions of Imperial Japan.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

itsonlyrocknrollToday 01:41 am JST

I would expect the whole arbitration process if or when both Governments of Japan and South Korea agree, to be guided and over-seen by the The International Court of Justice …...

No I don't see that at all. In order to for the ICJ to be involved, both nations must first agree. Secondly, both nations must be prepared to accept the ICJ ruling as compulsory. In this regard, Japan is a signatory but South Korea is not.

https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations

Considering that Japan has offered to settle the Liancourt Rocks issue at the ICJ three times and South Korea has refused each time, it's extremely unlikely that South Korea would now sign on to accept ICJ jurisdiction now.

The 1965 Treaty clauses regarding Arbitration is quite clear. The question now is whether South Korea will agree to arbitrate.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@Samit basu

So when did the 1910 treaty become null and void? In 1910 or 1945? The outcome of the forced labourer damages claim case depends on that question, because the 1965 treaty does not cover damages from the illegal actions of Imperial Japan.

I already clarified before you ask. It's 1945 when Japan surrendered. Wartime prescription is not illegal.

And...the claims between the High Contracting Parties and between their peoples, including those stipulated in Article IV(a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, have been settled completely and finally.

Read it all again along with dialogue in memorandum disclosed

6 ( +6 / -0 )

OssanAmerica, I agree, the ICJ role is not be to interfere, either any measure that could be interpreted as declarations, or judgments influencing the outcome. Article 111 of 1965 Treaty, paragraph 4 determines.

4. The Governments of the Contracting Parties shall abide by any award made by the arbitration board under the provisions of the present Article.

Th government of Japan is following the rule book and procedure of the dispute settlement written into the 1965 Treaty. Aspects that also determines how the tribunal/board composition is agreed.

The ICJ could if required, offer advice and/or guidance on judicial interpretation on Treaty law and the complexity of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties deemed to serve as appropriate for the arbitration panel to review.

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXIII-1&chapter=23&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en

Could the actions,behaviours and judgement presided over by The Supreme Court of Korea in rulings that could be a direct breach of articles of the 1965 Treaty, thus contemptuous of international law?.

The absolute Independence, transparency and experience of the agreed chosen arbitration panel is going to have to be unimpeachable.

Just as an example the UK Appellate Committee of The House of Lords, with a 600 year history of dispensed justice at the highest level..

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appellate-committee.html

The question still remains if the Government of South Korea will agree to any form of arbitration, especially when politically bluffs have been called

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@showchinmono

I already clarified before you ask. It's 1945 when Japan surrendered. Wartime prescription is not illegal.

Again, that is for the ICJ to determine if this case ever went before the ICJ.

If the ICJ finds that the 1910 treaty was null and void since 1910, then Japan is 100% liable for the entire damages done to Korea, even the Korean War. Again, damages are not covered by the 1965 treaty and Korea as a state can make the damages claim against Japan for its illegal occupation.

That's the risk Japan is facing. If Abe san had advice from international legal scholars, he would avoid ICJ as much as possible.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

@Samit Basu

Again, that is for the ICJ to determine if this case ever went before the ICJ.

If the ICJ finds that the 1910 treaty was null and void since 1910, then Japan is 100% liable for the entire damages done to Korea, even the Korean War. Again, damages are not covered by the 1965 treaty and Korea as a state can make the damages claim against Japan for its illegal occupation.

That's the risk Japan is facing. If Abe san had advice from international legal scholars, he would avoid ICJ as much as possible.

Wishful thinking doesn't help release your stress. SK government cowardly ignored Japan's request for bilateral negotiation for solving the issue last 4months while requesting for meeting Abe in coming G20 for economic cooperation especially currency swap. What kind of Joke is this? SK would probably keep ignoring this arbitration process too and now way it would appear in front of ICJ arbitration.

If SK Supreme Court and government believes 1910 treaty null and void, both should have scrapped 1965 treaty itself. How coward approach is this to keep the treaty effective but twist the spirit and the essence of it trying to keep sucking up all the money. Stupid Korean top court verdict called this is way more than just private/domestic issues and calling for the government to activate diplomatic protection, which basically scrapping the treaty itself and look at SK government so quiet and empty saying "nothing much we can do about this". Int'l society should start treating SK the same as it's boss in North.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@showchinmono

If SK Supreme Court and government believes 1910 treaty null and void, both should have scrapped 1965 treaty itself.

The ROK legal interpretation is that the 1910 treaty was null and void in 1910, and the 1965 is the first valid treaty that Korea signed with Japan. Just because the 1910 treaty was invalid doesn't make the 1965 treaty invalid. The 1965 treaty itself declared that the 1910 treaty was "Already null and void".

The ROK accepts the 1965 treaty as valid. But since the subject of damages was not covered in the 1965 treaty, they ruled that Japanese companies was liable for the damages.

BTW, the Korean argument of the 1910 treaty being null and void is the reason the IHS accepted the Korean demand for the renaming of the "Sea of Japan" and sent an ultimatum to Japan, that Japan either negotiate an agreed name with Korea or the IHS will wipe the "Sea of Japan" name off the IHS map next year.

Why did the IHS do this? Because the IHS accepted that the invalid 1910 treaty took away Korea's sovereign right to represent its interest in sea naming back in the early 20th century.

The judges and prosecutors (who are not democratically elected) are ruling the country

That would be a sign of a strong democratic country with an independent judiciary, a trait of a fully mature functioning democracy.

It's just a mobocracy

That's exactly what a democracy is. Japan's oligarchy, the rule by a handful of elite families, is not a democracy.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

@Samit Basu Today 12:42 am JST

This is the reason why the Korean supreme court allowed the damages lawsuit, citing the lack of damages wording in the 1965 treaty.

This is so strange, Koreans offered to include the word "damages" in the 1965 treaty but Japan refused, claiming it did nothing wrong or illegal during the Japanese occupation of Korea.

You mean, the Koreans failed to produce the necessary factors to make the Japanese agree to fault, and so they decided to unilaterally push it under an abuse of sovereignty?

The Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation does not mention "damages", but it does explicitly mention "claims", which by literal interpretation would include any claims for purported damages.

(The abuse of "sovereignty", in which sovereignty is degraded to nothing more than claimed impunity to conduct acts that are incorrect, illegal, unjustified and/or inexcusable, is common to both China and Korea.)

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@Samit Bass

You and SK jurisdiction should be called as cowards. The word "Already" was selected as a proof of compromise of mutual contract parties after 10yrs+of difficult negotiation with fundamental and fatal difference in one's principles and position.

Do not pretend you don't know that.

You and SK justice are basically challenging contents and purpose of the treaty for normalizing relationship between sovereign nations as if you were the ones who spend those days and concluded the treaty being pressed by USA with Vietnam War coming up. If SK legally interprets 1965 Treaty valid, remind yourself of the preamble of 1965 treaty:

 

Japan and the Republic of Korea,

Considering the historical background of relationship between their peoples and their mutual desire for good neighborliness and for the normalization of their relations on the basis of the principle of mutual respect for sovereignty;

Recognizing the importance of their close cooperation in conformity with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations to the promotion of their mutual welfare and common interests and to the maintenance of international peace and security; and….

Too busy to continue this worthless repeat

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@Samit Bass

Forgot to add some. If you read Minutes of the treaty and the actual verdict itself, you know, Legitimacy of annexation was actually discussed on the table. Nonethless SK did conclude the treaty. Then In 1965, SK's demands were broken down to 8 pieces which were fully covered by the treaty including damages and claims arose from any damages. If SK was not satisfied, SK should have added up 9th piece, so called compensation for illegal acts as results of illegal occupation by Imperial Japan or at least clarify IN THE TREATY that that 9th item was not solved and hence further to be negotiated between two contracting parties, or something like that as addendum. Even PRC, Deng Xiaoping made statements in public immediately after concluding the treaty as " the dispute over Senkaku islands would be passed onto smarter future generation to solve".

If SK cannot cope with contents and purpose of 1965 Treaty, it should have not concluded it in the 1st place or scrapped it when it disclosed all the minutes in 2005.

Do not keep hanging on miserable selfish excuse .

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites